Jumbo

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Recommended Posts

 
 
 
20 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

May God continue to shower our Fuhrer with golden blessings...

I see what you did there. lol

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No collusion?  Here's today's example...

 

The Mueller report documents that on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and deputy Rick Gates met with with Konstantin Kilimnek, a Russian/Ukrainian political strategist with close ties to Russian intelligence agencies, at the Grand Havana Club in New York City.

 

According to the report, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election. The briefing included the campaign's messaging strategy  and a  discussion of ‘battleground’ states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.  And then Manafort gave Kilimnek internal polling data.  They left the cigar club separately that day to avoid detection.

 

In the weeks after that cigar club meeting, Rick Gates continued to feed Kilimnik updated, internal  polling data.   In the meantime, the Russian GRU bombarded voters in those target states with social media messaging, disguised as coming from American people, designed to boost Trump, disparage Clinton, and turn off Sanders voters, including stuff on key wedge issues. lies about the state of Hilary Clinton's health and other bull****...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

No collusion?  Here's today's example...

 

The Mueller report documents that on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and deputy Rick Gates met with with Konstantin Kilimnek, a Russian/Ukrainian political strategist with close ties to Russian intelligence agencies, at the Grand Havana Club in New York City.

 

According to the report, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election. The briefing included the campaign's messaging strategy  and a  discussion of ‘battleground’ states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.  And then Manafort gave Kilimnek internal polling data.  They left the cigar club separately that day to avoid detection.

 

In the weeks after that cigar club meeting, Rick Gates continued to feed Kilimnik updated, internal  polling data.   In the meantime, the Russian GRU bombarded voters in those target states with social media messaging, disguised as coming from American people, designed to boost Trump, disparage Clinton, and turn off Sanders voters, including stuff on key wedge issues. lies about the state of Hilary Clinton's health and other bull****...

 

Fake News.

Trump said no collusion, why don't you just respect the fact that he won, and appreciate all he's done.

SEIG....

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Did it do that weird special character thing that doesn't censor it at all or just miss it? I have seen both. 

psssst....there was no edit. 😁

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

No collusion?  Here's today's example...

 

The Mueller report documents that on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and deputy Rick Gates met with with Konstantin Kilimnek, a Russian/Ukrainian political strategist with close ties to Russian intelligence agencies, at the Grand Havana Club in New York City.

 

According to the report, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election. The briefing included the campaign's messaging strategy  and a  discussion of ‘battleground’ states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.  And then Manafort gave Kilimnek internal polling data.  They left the cigar club separately that day to avoid detection.

 

In the weeks after that cigar club meeting, Rick Gates continued to feed Kilimnik updated, internal  polling data.   In the meantime, the Russian GRU bombarded voters in those target states with social media messaging, disguised as coming from American people, designed to boost Trump, disparage Clinton, and turn off Sanders voters, including stuff on key wedge issues. lies about the state of Hilary Clinton's health and other bull****...

 

Someone should be doing this daily in the news. It would help alot I think 

Edited by Llevron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Reading that part of the Mueller report now about the close cooperation between the GRU, using the online personnas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer2," and Wikileaks/julian Assange. 

 

One disgusting tidbit... after the emails stolen by from the DNC the GRU start appearing, first in DCLeaks and then in Wkileaks, reports start emerging that the Russian government was behind the hacks.  As a result, Assange and Wikileaks make a number of statements denying Russia as the source and hinting that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer murdered in a botched mugging in DC, was the source and that he was murdered to cover up the crime.

 

Of course, Trump friend Sean Hannity and other clowns at Fox pick up the slanderous accusation of the murdered kid and run with it.

 

~~~~~

"I love Wikileaks!"

  - Donald Trump, 50 times.

 

Excuse me, I have to go take a shower.

Edited by Dan T.
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

Of course, Trump friend Sean Hannity and other clowns at Fox pick up the slanderous accusation of the murdered kid and run with it.

 

~~~~~

"I love Wikileaks!"

  - Donald Trump, 50 times.

 

Excuse me, I have to go take a shower.

 

And republican voters ate that **** up. They are currently pretending that didnt happen though 

Edited by Llevron
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

So for our legal experts on the board, or at least acting legal experts, how does the law work when it comes to the question of Obstruction if the President is requesting people to break the law and/or do things to stifle on-going investigations and they simply refuse?  Does their refusal to carry out his requests also absolve Trump from obstruction, or does the fact that he was telling people to do things in itself obstruction?  In other words if Trump is intending to obstruct justice through other people is that obstruction?

 

I'm not a lawyer but my limited understanding is that inchoate, or "endeavoring" to obstruct justice is a very real thing and just as serious.

 

Quote


1736. INCHOATE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSES

Several of the obstruction of justice provisions prohibit "endeavors" to obstruct. Section 1503 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits "endeavors" to tamper with jurors and officers of the court. The omnibus clauses of sections 1503 and 1505 prohibit "endeavors" to obstruct justice as well as actual obstructions of justice. Section 1510 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits "endeavors" to obstruct criminal investigations through bribery.

 

 

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1736-inchoate-obstruction-justice-offenses

 

 

 

Mueller weighed in on this himself in the report:

 

Quote

What’s more, Mueller even briefly addressed the prospect of charging a defendant with attempted obstruction of justice. “Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal,” Mueller explains in a two-paragraph analysis. He also quotes a recent ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals holding that prosecutors “need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded” when prosecution attempts to obstruct justice.

Edited by mistertim
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

So for our legal experts on the board, or at least acting legal experts, how does the law work when it comes to the question of Obstruction if the President is requesting people to break the law and/or do things to stifle on-going investigations and they simply refuse?  Does their refusal to carry out his requests also absolve Trump from obstruction, or does the fact that he was telling people to do things in itself obstruction?  In other words if Trump is intending to obstruct justice through other people is that obstruction?

 

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I'm not a lawyer but my limited understanding is that inchoate, or "endeavoring" to obstruct justice is a very real thing and just as serious.

 

 

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1736-inchoate-obstruction-justice-offenses

 

 

 

Mueller weighed in on this himself in the report:

 

 

Somebody in this thread pointed out that conspiracy to commit obstruction is a crime, too.  

 

And there was a post in here (don't remember if it was a member speaking, or a post of somebody else saying it), saying that he had prosecuted, and convicted, someone of obstruction for suggesting that a witness be out of the jurisdiction on the trial date, and the witness didn't do it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problems you run into applying general standards to a person authorized for actions is manifold.

 

I'd link to several legal scholars explaining it but why bother....it will sort itself out in time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, twa said:

the problems you run into applying general standards to a person authorized for actions is manifold.

 

I'd link to several legal scholars explaining it but why bother....it will sort itself out in time

 

I'll take "it is impossible for a (Republican) person to abuse or illegally use a power" for the 35th attempt, Alex.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, twa said:

the problems you run into applying general standards to a person authorized for actions is manifold.

 

I'd link to several legal scholars explaining it but why bother....it will sort itself out in time

 

1370.gif

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is expecting their to be any election security with respect to the Russians?  2016 was their beta test, 2020 is going to be 5 times worse and the Trump administration is going to do nothing to prevent it and will probably actively encourage it (again). 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Who is expecting their to be any election security with respect to the Russians?  2016 was their beta test, 2020 is going to be 5 times worse and the Trump administration is going to do nothing to prevent it and will probably actively encourage it (again). 

 

Already did more than Obama.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidents-election-interference-order-needed-first-step

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/video-trumps-efforts-to-stop-election-interference/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

Well, he spent years claiming it didn't exist  (And as near as I can tell, has never admitted otherwise.)  

 

Does that count as "denounce"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I guess if you ignore all of the encouragement Trump gave the Russians to actively engage in interference on his behalf on television and on Twitter, and assume that he will act in good faith upon the reports that his executive order requests be provided by our national security apparatus (which is all the order does and Trump actually believing intelligence reports would be a 180 degree pivot from his history).  

 

Also:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531

 

Quote

Joe Biden said Tuesday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stopped the Obama administration from speaking out about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign by refusing to sign on to a bipartisan statement of condemnation.

 

That moment, the former Democratic vice president said, made him think “the die had been cast ... this was all about the political play.”


He expressed regret, in hindsight, given the intelligence he says came in after Election Day. "Had we known what we knew three weeks later, we may have done something more,” Biden, a potential 2020 presidential candidate, said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twa said:

 

Sounds like the BS excuse the Dems use not to impeach Trump

 

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

1370.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

 

 

Yep, that is how I react to their excuses in both cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nobody has done more to raise public awareness of Russian interference than Trump, that is undeniable.  It took trump getting elected for the dems to take any action on Russia interference whatsoever..

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Nobody has done more to raise public awareness of Russian interference than Trump, that is undeniable.  It took ok trump getting elected for the dems to take any action on Russia interference whatsoever..

 

Please tell me this is a troll/joke/sarcasm post.

 

 

Please.

 

 

PLEASE.

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Nobody has done more to raise public awareness of Russian interference than Trump, that is undeniable.  It took trump getting elected for the dems to take any action on Russia interference whatsoever..

This is parody.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Nobody has done more to raise public awareness of Russian interference that Trump, that is undeniable.  It took ok trump getting elected for the dems to take any action on Russia interference whatsoever..

 

Well to be fair, President Obama did try to get Mitch to come on board with addressing this particular issue. It was rejected by Mitch. Now could have President Obama done more? Sure, but it would have divided the country terribly because he would have been roasted for trying to interfere. The intelligence community didn't have all the information yet. Wasn't it during that time that the FISA applications were being processed? A dem. president did start to take action, but was rebuffed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.